the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Also could you provide an example of trial and error without reason?
Cheers
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Trial and error does not suggest an ability to reason. We associate it with reason but it doesn't suggest an ability to reason.
Then go back and read what you wrote in my reply.
It is the scientific method that is trusted,
because it has a significant track record of producing reliable results and self correcting errors over time.
If a scientist does not follow the method and is exposed, bye bye to their career.
In fact, every hour of every day, you rely on discoveries from science in your everyday life.
So much so, this reality likely escapes you.
Nobody would do that--unless the scientist also happened to be a theologian. We put our trust in scientists to discover truths about the natural world, not about God.They are called the experts and they - like you and i - are fallable. What reason do you have to put your trust in a scientist - re God - but not a pastor?
Hey hey you marvelous and unique creaturelooks like the loud laughter has stopped for the time being.
The scientific method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Would you say you have 100% trust in the method or 99.9% trust? How much trust do have for the scientific method?
You mean human discoveries whether they are arbitrary or systematic. At the back of the scientific method is a man who forms the conclusions and reasons with the facts.
I think i better way saying things is human beings have a significant track record of producing reliable results and self correcting erros over time. Human beings systematic observe, measure, and experiment, and formulate, test, and modify hypotheses.
They are called the experts and they - like you and i - are fallable. What reason do you have to put your trust in a scientist - re God - but not a pastor?
Heads up im a construction worker and i systematic observe work, measure up stuff, and experiment with the unknown, formulate ideas on what is happening or how to fix something, test my ideas see if they work and why, and modify hypotheses on job sites as new info comes along.
Iam an expert at what i do, as the general public pay me to do things they cannot do or do not understand. Alot of what i do can be proved and i can show the evidence for my expertise - it works or does not, its right or its wrong ie by documented guidlines or an authority.
If i didnt observe any part of my work or the job i too will not be successful in my career.
A cross walk attendant with the same issue of observation would likely find it difficult to remain employed.
A politician may get away with it but the majority of us utilize the scientific method in some variation.
It is called reasoning.
Why do you assume - when we consider God - a scientists reasoning on subject, is the basis of your faith? Putting the scientific method aside, why are do you trust a scientists opinion on God?
Yep. Every hour of the day i benefit from 1000's of years of human advancement and discovery.
Soon i will have a bath. Today i used an instrument to detect moisture, also i used a hammer and some electricity to power my tools.
Before and after i drove my work car and had a burito for lunch. Tonight i will watch tv, have meat and veges for dinner - i love boiled veges - play some guitar (i rock!!!) Then go to bed (sleepy time).
Please excuse my bluntness, what point are you trying to make?
I just gave you an example of a usual day for me - granted i didnt mention picking up keys, talking to ppl, using a phone or toilet breaks.
What reality do you think i live in?
What point here are you trying to make?
Cheers and finally you have come out of your shell to chat. Lets reason together my friend. Fun!!!
Hey hey you
Before we continue Im curious, if you do not want to explain your position and discuss your burden of proof then what do you want from this discussion?
Cheers
processA process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
LMGTFYHow can a process be random?
I have no power or authority to force anyone to take vaccines, nor would I want to. I think education & incentivisation is better. If I could, I'd arrange it so that being vaccinated was a significant financial advantage (i.e. make refusing vaccination a significant financial disadvantage). In some places, kids are only allowed in school if they've been vaccinated. It seems unfair, but it's up to the parents.Great so do we hear you trying to force everyone to take these?
It's simply a question of relative risk - it would be irrational to decide to drive to work instead of taking the train simply because people can be killed in train crashes - trains are far safer than cars. Refusing vaccines because of the remote chance of adverse effects is similarly irrational.Yet there are registered deaths and effects from vaccinations for whatever reasons. If you get run over by a train, you do not ask for the model and wheel sizes of the train I would suspect. Those who saw the accident might avoid railway crossings or be a lot more careful at them. The reason people get sick and even die from vaccinations is not so important.
Red herring. Bacteriophages are not drugs, and they attack bacteria, not human cells. The clue is in the name.The FDA approved pills that kill little people.
then they approve other drugs many think will kill people.
"
sufentanil, it’s a new formulation of a drug currently given intravenously. Critics say it will be incredibly easy for health workers to pocket and divert the drug to the illicit drug market and because it is so small and concentrated, it will likely kill people who overdose on it."
“This is a dangerous, reckless move,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe senior adviser of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. He questions whether there’s need for yet another synthetic opioid when the U.S. is in the throes of an opioid overdose crisis.
FDA approves powerful new opioid in 'terrible' decision
Or this
"FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb told members of Congress that he would "take another look" at Nuplazid, which is the only drug approved to treat hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis. The medication has been cited as a so-called "suspect" medication in hundreds of deaths voluntarily reported by caregivers, doctors and other medical professionals since it hit the market, as highlighted in a recent CNN report."
FDA re-examines safety of new Parkinson's drug - CNN
And the FDA was involved with a baby parts operation apparently, that was cancelled recently.
"“We are alarmed that the FDA has continued to award contracts to ABR for the procurement of human fetal tissue,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter."
Anti-abortion rights group celebrates cancellation of FDA fetal tissue contract
etc etc etc etc
Direct experience is a poor and biased guide to risk. When the health risks of smoking were first revealed, people said, "Oh, but my grandad smoked 50 a day and was healthy for 95 years" - but that is no guide to the risk. That's why large studies are done.The problem with studies is that they are sometimes like polls...it depends who finances them and why. There are many direct experience cases that would disagree with the study I suspect.
In my view, vaccinations that demonstrably provide significant public protection from serious disease should be mandatory. YMMV.There are good stories such as the smallpox one. Does this mean whatever vaccinations you like should be mandatory? No. Some diseases are coming back, and some diseases that were eradicated are supposedly actually quite alive and well and available for bio war purposes, I have heard.
I don't want anything because I've seen you pull this same sort of tactic again and again in every thread you enter into and I find it disingenuous.
I'm putting you onto ignore now.
Nobody would do that--unless the scientist also happened to be a theologian. We put our trust in scientists to discover truths about the natural world, not about God.
Put's his trust in science to discover truths about the natural world? Sure.Hey hey speedwell
I bring to your attention to @bhsmte response
"I base my trust on track record and reliable and repeatable results, end of story. Religious opinions are a dime a dozen and are all subjective. Hope that clears it up for you."
Looks like this one does. What u think?
Put's his trust in science to discover truths about the natural world? Sure.
process NOUN 1 A series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. 1.1 A natural series of changes. 'the ageing process'
LMGTFY
I base my trust on track record and reliable and repeatable results, end of story.
Religious opinions are a dime a dozen and are all subjective.
Hope that clears it up for you.
And those creationists are, in turn, just as egotistical and disparaging.
Hey hey
Wow you gave up fast! It seems you cannot explain your position or defend it. I suspect you dont even understand what you believe.
It depends on the pastor.Hey hey
That was not the substance of what was meant. God is the context here as to who to trust re pastor or scientist. It was not in relation to the natural world.
What u think?
Yes, killing people is a proper use of a gun. It is what it was originally designed to do after all. Of course, whether that killing is justified or not is a whole other story.Are you saying that the proper use of all guns is to kill people?
I have guns and nowhere in the instructions does it say to kill people with them. I do however kill animals, and would defend myself with them if necessary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?